Reactionary AI Centrism

The current wave of AI discourse is what I'd call "Radical AI Centrism." The gist is:

• "Good" can mean "morally or ethically good" or "effective and able to do what it says it does."
• Many critics of AI have made arguments about both: that AI is both a 'glorified spellcheck that doesn't work very well' (not good at what it does) and 'increasing electricity prices, destroying jobs, etc.' (not good in a moral sense)
• In the last five months or so, AI models have gotten better at what they do, according to most quantitative and qualitative measures.
• This has made some past critiques of AI inaccurate, and some critics have been slow to adjust their rhetoric for the new reality of AI models that can write passable code.
• Therefore, a new space for criticism has opened up: a "backlash to the backlash" in which AI critics are critiqued for insufficiently appreciating how AI is 'good at what it does.'
• This realm of argument is useful strategically because:
  • It is narrowly true.
  • It satisfies the reactionary centrist impulse to avoid straightforward descriptions of 'bad things' and to instead find complex, sophisticated alternative takes.
  • For many people, it's more fun to argue with people in their own circle than to critique large corporations.
  • It shifts the argument away from the moral, ethical, and political realm (moral good) and toward the realm of technology and effectiveness (good at what it does).